Literature DB >> 15271009

Improving the acceptability of the atrial defibrillator: patient-activated cardioversion versus automatic night cardioversion with and without sedation (ADSAS 2).

Lana Boodhoo1, Andrew Mitchell, Michael Ujhelyi, Neil Sulke.   

Abstract

Acceptability of the atrial defibrillator is partly limited by concerns about shock related anxiety and discomfort. Sedation and/or automatic cardioversion therapy during sleep may ease shock discomfort and improve patient acceptability. Three atrial cardioversion techniques were compared: patient-activated cardioversion with sedation, automatic night cardioversion with sedation, and automatic night cardioversion without sedation. Sedation was oral midazolam (15 mg). Fifteen patients aged 60 +/- 13 years were assigned each strategy randomly for three consecutive episodes of persistent atrial fibrillation requiring cardioversion. Patients completed questionnaires for multiple parameters immediately and again at 24 hours postcardioversion. Atrial cardioversion strategies with oral sedation (patient-activated and automatic) significantly reduced shock recall by 77% (P < 0.005), therapy dissatisfaction by 57%-71% (P < 0.03), shock discomfort by 61%-73% (P < 0.01), shock pain by 79%-83% (P < 0.001), and shock intensity by 73%-77% (P < 0.03), compared to automatic night cardioversion without sedation (P < 0.02). Atrial shock pain was short-lived and caused little disruption to the patients' daily routines. Automatic night cardioversion without sedation, resulted in sleep disturbances not seen with the other strategies (42% vs 0%, P < 0.001) as well as concerns about future pain or discomfort. Twelve patients (80%) chose patient-activated cardioversion with sedation as their preferred treatment, and three (20%) remainder chose automatic night cardioversion with sedation. Ninety percent of patients chose automatic night cardioversion without sedation as the least acceptable therapy. Sedation significantly increases atrial shock acceptability regardless of cardioversion method. Shocks without sedation are significantly less acceptable to patients using the atrial defibrillators.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  2004        PMID: 15271009     DOI: 10.1111/j.1540-8159.2004.00558.x

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Pacing Clin Electrophysiol        ISSN: 0147-8389            Impact factor:   1.976


  3 in total

Review 1.  New technologies of internal defibrillation.

Authors:  Derek J Dosdall; Raymond E Ideker
Journal:  J Interv Card Electrophysiol       Date:  2005-08       Impact factor: 1.900

2.  Is dual defibrillator better than conventional DDD pacing in brady-tachy syndrome? Results of the ICARUS Trial (Internal Cardioversion Antitachypacing and Prevention: Resource Utilization Study).

Authors:  Massimo Santini; Renato Ricci; Carlo Pignalberi; Maurizio Russo; Barbara Magris; Nicoletta Grovale; Tiziana De Santo
Journal:  J Interv Card Electrophysiol       Date:  2006-01-18       Impact factor: 1.900

Review 3.  Intracardiac atrial defibrillation.

Authors:  Derek J Dosdall; Raymond E Ideker
Journal:  Heart Rhythm       Date:  2006-12-28       Impact factor: 6.343

  3 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.